Estate of Obata
Filed 9/26/18 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION THREE
Estate of FUSAE OBATA, Deceased.
KAZUKO UENAKA et al., A150284 Petitioners and Respondents, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RP13696569) REIKO NAKANO et al., Objectors and Appellants.
Estate of EMI OBATA, Deceased.
KAZUKO UENAKA et al., A150285 Petitioners and Respondents, v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. RP13696574) REIKO NAKANO et al., Objectors and Appellants.
The sole issue on appeal is whether California law recognizes the Japanese practice called 養子縁組 (yōshi-engumi) as an “adoption” within the meaning of California Probate Code sections 6450 and 6451.1 We conclude that it does and, thus, we shall affirm the trial court’s order granting respondents’ petitions for entitlement to estate distribution. Factual and Procedural Background The decedents, Fusae Obata and Emi Obata, are sisters who in June 2013 died intestate, having never been married and with no descendants. In September 2013, letters
1 All statutory references are to the Probate Code unless otherwise noted.
1
of administration of the two estates were issued in the Alameda County Superior Court. Thereafter, a dispute arose regarding the line of succession that centered on the decedents’ father, Tomejiro Obata, and the impact of his yōshi-engumi by Minejiro Obata and Kiku Obata in 1911. Appellants are the descendants of Tomejiro’s biological parents, Hikozaemon Nakano and Haru Nakano, and respondents are the descendants of the Obata family.2 Following a hearing in September 2016, the court found in favor of respondents, the Obata family members. The court concluded that California recognizes Tomejiro’s yōshi-engumi as a legal adoption and that under the Probate Code, “The adoption of Tomejiro Obata by Minejiro Obata and Kiku Obata severed the relationship of parent and child between Tomejiro Obata and his natural parents, Hikozaemon Nakano and Haru Nakano.”3 Appellants timely filed a notice of appeal. Discussion Under section 6450, “A relationship of parent and child exists for the purpose of determining intestate succession by, through, or from a person in the following circumstances: [¶] (a) The relationship of parent and child exists between a person and the person’s natural parents, regardless of the marital status of the natural parents. [¶] (b) The relationship of parent and child exists between an adopted person and the person’s adopting parent or parents.” Under section 6451, subdivision (a), “An adoption severs the relationship of parent and child between an adopted person and a natural parent of the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)